H J AMES J OHNSON

HUMAN RIGHTS § CIVIL RIGHTS § CORRUPTION § MEDIA

D EFA M AT I O N § P R O F E S S I O N A L N E G L I G E N C E L AW
1 S T F L O O R 1 4 1 O S B O R N E S T R E E T S O U T H YA R R A V I C T O R I A 3 1 4 1
TELEPHONE: +613 9279 3932 FA C S I M I L E : + 6 1 3 9 2 7 9 3 9 5 5

Monday 15 June 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

TO: Ms Miranda Milne (CEO Legal Practitioners TO: Ms Jennifer Sheehan

Liability AVOIDANCE Committee “LPLAC”) (Associate to Associate Justice Lansdowne)
By Facsimile: 9670 5538 By Facsimile: 9603 6050
TO: Mr Joe Saltalamacchia CC: Ms Cath Mukhtar
Prothonotary, Supreme Court of Victoria (Associate to Associate Justice Daly)
By Facsimile: 9603 9400 By Facsimile: 9603 9054
(please copy to Justice Kaye)
TO: Ms Rena Sofranou CC: Mr Peter Rashleigh
(barrister funded by LPLAC for Harwood (solicitor funded by LPLAC for barrister Richard
Andrews Lawyers) By Facsimile: 9229 5050 Ingleby) By Facsimile: 9274 5111
TO: Ms Radhika Mendis CC: Mr Howard Obst
(solicitor funded by LPLAC for Harwood (solicitor funded by LPLAC for barrister Graeme
Andrews Lawyers) Devries) By Facsimile: 9605 3499
By Facsimile: 9670 2723
CC: Ms Allison Grice CC: Ms Margaret McNamara (solicitor to the legal
(solicitor funded by LPLAC for Berry Family practitioners non-regulator "LSC")
Law) By Facsimile: 9603 9320 By Facsimile: 9679 8101
CC: Mr Gerry Davies (a solicitor not funded by TO: Berry Family Law
LPLAC representing Dr David List) By Facsimile: 9399 9006
By Facsimile: 9600 0894

Dear All

AUSSIES IN WONDERLAND: WITCH HUNT, WATERGATE, WATERLOO – VICTORIAN SUPREME COURT

PROCEEDINGS 9665 OF 2007, 9263 AND 10222 OF 2008 AND 3731 AND 3766 OF 2009

1. I address my messages in this facsimile firstly to Ms Miles and the Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION
Committee (cc others), secondly to Associate Justice Daly (cc others), thirdly to Associate Justice
Lansdowne (cc others) and fourthly to Justice Kaye (cc others).

2. As summarised below, in my additional submissions (for Associate Justice Lansdowne) and my additional
grounds of appeal for my Notice of Appeal (that part of these proceedings numbered 3731 of 2009 in the
Court of Appeal) I have a lot of questions about the injustice that has occurred and the cover-up that the
Courts and the lawyers and regulatory agencies involved are seeking to cloak over it. Beginning with a
question why the Courts are so hell bent on throwing my claims for compensation and law reform out of
court post haste, rather than granting me the opportunity to obtain independent legal and political

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 1 of Many
 representation to present my claims for compensation and reform in proper dignified fashion? Is it so
important, or in the interests of the peace welfare and good government of the ordinary citizens of this State
and Country that my claims be suppressed before they are even documented? Rest assured that, all in
good time, the cover up will fail.

Message for Miranda Milne, Legal Practitioners Liability Committee

3. I refer to my letters of 30 May 2009 and 1, 2 and 8 and 12 June 2009. I also refer with disappointment to Ms
Miles letter of 9 June 2009 (see attached).

4. It is clear that Ms Milne is not a fit and proper person to hold the public office as the chief executive of the
statutory government agency known as the Legal Practitioners Liability Evasion Committee. Hopefully the
Attorney-General will take swift steps to appoint a suitable successor. What disgraceful decision making.
Miranda, this problem will not go away until the LPLEC and/or its insureds pay substantial compensation to
me so that I can start to repair the harm that they have caused to my children, and their mothers. I am
including in this Ms Cressy and her three children. I recirculate the orders that the tenth defendant by
counterclaim.

5. Miranda, it is not just your insureds who have abused their powers privileges and acted illegally. You my
dear have now crossed the line also, deliberately turning your back on your very clear statutory
responsibilities under the legislations that I mentioned in my letter of 8 June 2009.

6. In the meantime, I advise that my offer to the LPLEC has increased by 10%. That’s $12.1 million.

7. And Miranda I repeat my questions from my earlier correspondences, which you (while you hold office), your
stand-in, and your successor, are legally obligated to answer:

a. Repeat of correspondence of 30 May 2009 (key extract only)

Proposals
4. Miranda, I am prepared to settle my claims against your insureds without admissions of liability,
if your Legal Practitioners Liability AVOIDANCE Committee pays to me $11,000,000 (Eleven
Million Dollars) in cleared funds before 11 am on 11 June 2009.

5. This amount will go some way towards compensating me and my families (including Ms

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 2 of Many
 Cressy's three children – one of which has a 5% possibility of being my biological daughter) I will
be able to restore basic needs to the Cressy family, including stable housing, food, clothing. I
will hopefully be able to get proper counselling and support for that family – things I had been
providing for them for the decade up until your insureds made it financially and legally
impossible for me to continue (on pain of imprisonment for up to 3 years if I even try it).

6. This amount will go some way towards me compensating my estranged, but still legally married
wife of 20 years and my three children of my marriage for their grief and suffering during this 2
year witch hunt and oppression.

7. This amount may also go some way to alleviating your high levels of psychological stress, as I
evidenced when we met on 20 April 2009.

8. Please let me know you and your insureds (Second to Seventh inclusive Defendants to my
Counterclaim's) position towards this proposal at your earliest convenience. Frankly, I am at a
loss to understand why you have not been throwing millions of dollars in settlement offers to me,
rather than dispensing millions of dollars in unlimited free legal aid to your insureds in the
abysmal hope that you might succeed in your goal of legal practitioners liability evasions for
your insureds.

b. Repeat of correspondence of 1 June 2009

2. Anyone embarrassed yet? Keep reading children. You will be. Miranda, CEO of the Legal
Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee, time is tick tick tocking on the $11,000,000 offer I
sent you Saturday. Shall we dance?

c. Repeat of correspondence of 2 June 2009 (key extract only)

6. Finally, I note (hopefully unnecessary) that if the Court of Appeal judge and the Trial Division
judge do not meet my expectations of slowing things off until 28 August 2009 or later, then that
will send to me (and more importantly, to others too) a very strong and clear signal that (like the
original trial judge, whether wittingly or, if you could believe it, otherwise) the Supreme Court
must be seen generally (and not just the original trial judge as an isolated exception) as a chief
agent and facilitator for injustice rather than an agent and forum for justice.

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 3 of Many
 d. Repeat of correspondence of 8 June 2009 (key extract only)

Message for Ms Miranda Miles (CEO of the Legal Practitioners Liability Evasion
Committee)

17. Firstly Miranda, let me repeat my observations as set out in my letter of 2 June 2009:

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 4 of Many
 1. I refer to my correspondences of Saturday 30 May 2009 and Monday 1 June
2009 (for Associate Justice Lansdowne's benefit, I inform that these are included
amongst the exhibits to the Affidavit that I filed in this part of these proceedings
renumbered as 3731 of 2009, notably my substantial letter and exhibits of 30 May
2009).

2. It is my expectation that the hearing listed for the Court of Appeal (tomorrow) and
the hearings in the Trial Division (Before Associate Justice Daly) commencing the
day after tomorrow (4 June 2009) will to all intents and purposes be adjourned off
for further mentions after 28 August 2009:

a. firstly so that the Trial Division judges can, before proceeding with any
further hearings, have the benefit of the Appellate Court's adjudication on
2 pending appeals (3731 of 2009 and 3766 of 2009 on important issues of
consolidation, stays and judicial independence from bias, amongst other
things); and

b. secondly, to allow me to must the same legal representation (whether

from Victorian Legal Aid, the Law Institute of Victoria, or private or other
Government funding sources) before the trial judges and the appellate
judges, so that the substantial legal principles and rights at stake in these
proceedings are properly brought forward properly pleaded to assist in
their proper adjudication.

3. Obviously, this is necessary in the interests of justice as I do not presently have

the anything like the same resources as the Legal Practitioners Liability
EVASION Committee to fund even one city law firm and one city barrister to
present my pleadings and arguments, let alone the 4 city law firms and 4
barristers that the Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee is able to
provide automatically and unlimited and 'free' to the 6 legal practitioner
defendants by counterclaim.

4. I wish to summarise without repeating in detail the obvious corruption I have

previously identified in there being:

a. special lawyers only laws (professional negligence laws don't apply to

barristers and litigation solicitors); and

b. special Government legal aid agencies for lawyers (the Legal

Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee) – to provide unlimited free
legal aid to barristers and litigation solicitors, lest anyone wronged by
corrupt rogue barristers and lawyers dare try to get these laws changed by
the Courts; and

c. even a special Government "regulatory" [sic] agency (the LEGAL

SERVICES COMMISSIONER) whose whole existence it seems is to
refuse to regulate rogue barristers and litigation solicitors (and in doing so,
create the appearance of a co-regulatory model (Government and legal
profession co-regulation) that is in effect a NO-Regulation model –
encouraging what is little more than racketeering and blackmail by certain
rogue family law barristers and solicitors (such as the six legal practitioner
defendants by counterclaim in these proceedings – Harwood Andrews
Lawyers, its solicitor David William Hanlon, Barrister Richard Ingleby,

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 5 of Many
 e. Repeat of correspondence of 12 June 2009 (key extract only)

Message for Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion) Committee (cc others)

6. I look forward to a fit and proper response from the Legal Practitioners Liability (Evasion)
Committee to my correspondences of last week – especially my specific questions and requests
set out in my facsimile of 8 June 2009.

8. Miranda, seems to me that your psychological distress as I evidenced when we met on 20 April 2009 has
not improved. As I explain above, this problem is not going away until it is solved and reforms put in place to
prevent any possible occurrence – no matter how painful those reforms may be to the three privileged
branches of the legal profession, or the totally captured Governmental agencies supposedly independently
regulating them (including the Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee and the Legal Services
(NON-) Commissioner. If you feel the need of a good psychologist or a good psychiatrist, or even a couple
of bad ones, there are some of all kinds of my recent acquaintance and I am happy to provide you with
letters of introduction.

9. Further Miranda, perhaps while you are dolling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for 4 lawyers (2 apiece)
for Ms 199s 4 lawyers, you might be well advised to find a solicitor-barrister duo (2 lawyers) for yourself.
Mind you, I believe it is unlawful for you to spend Legal Practitioners Liability Evasion Committee monies to
hire 8 lawyers try to cover up crimes committed by your 4 insureds lawyers. I believe it is even more
criminal for you to hire lawyers to cover up your own crimes against me and my children, so best you not dip
into the LPLEC funds for your own pair of lawyers now. Pretend for a moment that 4 rogue lawyers pushing
a fraudulent blackmail claim have ceased all your assets and totally destroyed your income (yes, walk a mile
in my shoes m’lady). Why not try applying to the legal aid organisations to fund a pair of lawyers for
yourself? VLAO. PILCH. It’s a real blast of an experience, I can assure you. If all else fails, you can make
a free 30 minute phone call to the Law Institute’s telephone help line. That should fix all your/our problems
m’lady shouldn’t it.

Message for Associate Justice Daly (cc Others)

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 6 of Many
9. I attach (for the benefit of all) a copy of my facsimile to Associate Mukhtar of Thursday morning. I record
that I spoke with Ms Mukhtar briefly on the phone at about 9.30 am to advise my inability to attend Court that
day for health reasons.

10. I attach (for the benefit of all) a copy of Associate Mukhtar’s facsimile to me of 5 June 2009, which I
received, by fire-bomb-proof snail mail late on Friday afternoon (12 June 2009). Please explain. Is it normal
for an Associate Justice to be making rulings, in effect judging an appeal against her own decisions, the
decisions of a fellow Associate Justice (Evans), and the decisions of a full Justice (Hansen) above the heads
of the Court of Appeal? Doesn’t this ring bells that something incredibly wrong, and sinister has occurred
that is the antithesis of due process? And for an Associate Justice to be handing down written decisions. Is
this normal? Or does the abnormality ring bells that something incredibly wrong and sinister is going on?.

11. Please halt these unlawful proceedings in the Masters Court so that the Court of Appeal can deal with these
matters pending.

12. Please ensure that all future notices from the Masters Court and the Trial Division are sent to me according
to a reasonable time frame. In my endangered state, I need at least 9 days allowance for mail delivery
(even if it leaves the Court by facsimile, it still comes to me by snail mail, as I have explained several times).
Please allow me at least 7 days preparation time. Better still, please allow me to get a lawyer who is not so
distressed and emotionally involved in these injustices as I am.

13. Please halt all proceedings in the Master Court, the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal so that I can
successfully complete my petitions to relevant human rights, legal aid, and government and private sources
of legal aid funding, so that I can have experienced lawyers write my legal documents before the Court
hearings are scheduled. What’s the rush people? Remember Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen (‘Sentence first.
Verdict after”. Personally, I think that “Hearings first. Documents “after” is the ultimate in injustice. Don’t you
all agree?

Message for Associate Justice Lansdowne (cc Others)

14. I repeat my previous requests of previous correspondences. Please halt all proceedings in the Master
Court, the Trial Division and the Court of Appeal so that I can successfully complete my petitions to relevant
human rights, legal aid, and government and private sources of legal aid funding, so that I can have
experienced lawyers write my legal documents before the Court hearings are scheduled. What’s the rush

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 7 of Many
 people? Remember Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen (‘Sentence first. Verdict after”. Personally, I think that
“Hearings first. Documents “after” is the ultimate in injustice. Don’t you all agree?

15. I refer to my facsimile of 12 June 2009 and attach additional pages of submissions and additional pages to
include as my proposed restated Notice of Appeal (my fourth restatement now).

16. These additional submissions and additional grounds of appeal, my ‘escalier penses’ this weekend,
demonstrate why it is unjust that I am forced to represent myself with imprecise amateur drafted documents.
A fair trial? Me against 8 lawyers funded by the Legal Practitioners Liability Evasion Committee’ to aid 4
lawyers to evade liability? I am entitled to proper legal representation to draw my documents, represent me
in Court and obtain long over due compensation and substantial law reform.

17. My revised draft Amended Notice of Appeal (filed and served on 12 June 2009) outlines in very simple terms
that the judgments of Justice Kaye were totally unsupported by the independent evidence and contrary to
the applicable laws of this land. His judgement was totally wrong, induced by a totally scandalous lack of
due process instigated by Berry Family Law and Graeme Devries (on the top of the original misconducts and
abuses of Harwood Andrews Lawyers).

18. Briefly, I listed three grounds of appeal in the Amended Notice of Appeal as I recast it on 12 June 2008:

a. Abuse of Process and Denial of Natural Justice

i. Please explain how and why the Trial Judge compelled this trial to proceed, when pre-trial
steps like discovery (which the High Court describes as a vital step in this process) had not
been done, pleadings had not been settled

ii. Please explain how and why the Trial Judge gave these crook lawyers their December 2008
trial (based on their August 2008 lies to Master Kings, that this would be a 2 day trial) –
depriving me of proper drafted pleadings and proper legal representation at Trial;

iii. Please explain how and why the Trial Judge compelled this trial to proceed based on my
February 2008 draft counterclaims against Ms 1999, Harwood Andrews rather than based on
my November 2008 redrafts;

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 8 of Many
 iv. Please explain how and why the Trial Judge decided it is part of the Supreme Court Trial
Process for a defendant to be put on pre-trial at the instigation of the plaintiff’s counsel, and
the defendant has to earn the right to defend himself only after a scandalous sanity
inquisition? Federal Judge Professor Richard A Posner in his 3 rd edition of his work
“Literature and Law” refers at page 70 ff to the mock trials in Alice in Wonderland and
inquisition in “The Trial of St Joan”. The Knave of Hearts didn’t suffer this indignity. St Joan
and I did.

v. Please explain the “turn out your pocketses” ordeal I was put through in the witness box
under cross (very cross) examination.

vi. Please explain the Trial Judge’s refusal to take into account the scandalous and
contemptuous Federal Magistrates Orders of 8 September 2008 (reissued in late February
2009) as put together by James Turnbull and Peter Berry of Berry Family Law and Graeme
Devries and Federal Magistrate Daniel O’Dwyer. Why aren’t those men already in Victorian
jails for contempt of Court and perversion of the course of (Victorian) justice? Why didn’t the
Trial Judge put them there? I circulate another copy of those orders so you all can read the
contempt and perversion there. I note that on 20 March 2009 former Australian Human
Rights Commissioner and Federal Judge Marcus Einfeld received a 13 month sentence for
contempt and perversion of justice.

b. Paucity of the Plaintiff’s evidence

i. Please explain why Harwood Andrews, Berry Family Law and Graeme Devries took to trial a
claim by Ms 1999 that she was my live with de facto wife for 9 years and she financially
supported me based on “the paucity of the evidence”:

1. 1999 Valentines Card showing a romantic relationship of sorts; February 2000

Valentines Card showing it was over;

2. No evidence of any source of income or money other than the money I gave her for
child support, at any time during the relevant 9 year period (ergo no evidence of any
means to financially support me); Ms 1999s lawyers could subpoena my banking
records from my many mortgagees, but they couldn’t request or subpoena Ms 1999s?

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 9 of Many
 3. Knowing her mental instability and criminal propensities, such as her September 30
2008 assault and battery on her children and damage to her home, followed up by her
16 November 2008 burglary of me and my home; The Trial Judge (somewhat pained
as judged by his writings) had to find that Ms 1999 burgled my home, stole and sought
to conceal my evidence (all of my property acquisition, construction, funding and
refinancing records), and that Ms 1999 looked him in the eye and lied to him on 2 and
3 December 2008 whilst in the witness box.

4. All of the things that Ms 1999 should have brought to trial as evidence, if there were
any truth to her claims of a 9 year de facto relationship (as I summarised in closing
submissions on 13 February 2009, which the Trial Judge deprecatingly and
begrudgingly listed but did not address in his judgement);

ii. Please explain why the Trial Judge thought his scandalous and totally off the mark attacks on
my honour and dignity could somehow allow him to ignore the independent evidence:

1. Birth Certificate recording Ms 1999 and myself as informants registering the birth of
her youngest child in June 2000, and our separate and distinct addresses [I have now
filed in all 4 numbered Supreme Court proceedings Child Support Agency letters sent
to Ms 1999 in June 2000 showing that within a week of the birth of her daughter Ms
1999 had applied for statutory child support monies from me (some “dutiful committed
wife”) and also that for the first 4 years of his life her eldest son was primarily resident
with his father (wonder why?);

2. Eye-witnesses that Ms 1999 and her children lived at Altona from June 2006 as single
mother and three children, and other eye-witnesses that I never lived in that house but
from July 2003 lived some 20 kilometres distant;

3. My Bank Statements, Loan Documents, fee invoices (for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007
financial years) showing (contrary to the lie-filled submissions of Graeme Devries) that
I was more than financially self-sufficient with gross income of $40,000 - $45,000 per
month out of which to fund $20,000 - $25,000 of gross expenditure.

4. Eye-witness testimony, and all of Ms 1999s diaries and journals as I presented in

Court to the effect:

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 10 of Many
 a. Ms 1999s track record - that I was just one of several married boyfriends that
Ms 1999 picked up from amongst her brothel clients,

b. That Ms 1999 clearly has serious mental health problems, propensity for
violence and criminal actions (possibly linked to my 11 May 2009 flambé motor
vehicle?) and is a self-confessed liar as well as being found by the Trial Judge
to be a perjurer “I am in truth a beautiful liar”, or so she writes of herself).

c. Mathematical Miscalculations by the Trial Judge:

i. For forgetting Ms 1999s three children, she refused to provide DNA testing to support her
allegations that I biologically fathered the youngest of the three – presumable Jones v
Dunkel applies to say I am not the biological father of even one of her children;

ii. For assuming that Ms 1999s “devoted committed” housewifery was the equal of 6 ordinary
house wives (despite all of the independent evidence to the contrary that she was not the
equal of even 1/6th of a housewife towards her own children – let alone to me, the guy living
20 kilometres down the lane);

iii. For ignoring “negative financial contributions” by Ms 1999 and her lawyers (financial damage
caused to me by her / their caveats) causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of property
losses – let alone business and income losses – just the financial loss of $226,000 or more
on my Altona property translated a $105,000 judgement order against me to Ms 1999 into a
$121,000 judgement order against Ms 1999 (and her lawyers) to pay me.

19. I wish to articulate the following 4 further grounds of appeal (which in my ill health and haste last week were
not fleshed into this third restated Amended Notice of Appeal, though I believe they were dot pointed in the
original Notice of Appeal I filed):

a. Trial Judge ignored impact of my Calderbank Offer on issues of costs:

i. On 1 April 2008 I offered Ms 1999 a property free from encumbrances (my remaining
Hoppers Crossing property recently valued by the Court at $250,000) plus up to $50,000 to
pay her new lawyers (Berry Family Law, barely 3 weeks in the saddle). An offer some 2 ½ to

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 11 of Many
 3 times more generous than the amount the Trial Judge ordered me to pay her in February
2009. The only catch, aware of Ms 1999’s mental problems (as her lawyers almost certainly
were also by then) I stipulated that the house be put in her 8 year old daughter’s name (in
trust). A might generous Calderbank offer, even if rejected by Ms 1999s lawyers as not to
their liking. More than enough to make Ms 1999s lawyers liable to pay my $900,000 in legal
costs (incurred to Sutton Lawyers Pty Ltd) under Rule 63.23 and thereabouts.

b. Damages

i. Ms 1999s burglary on me did a lot more than $25 damage. Please explain why the Trial
Judge refused to hear me on issues of quantum of damages. These exceeded the $105,000
I was ordered to pay Ms 1999, by a considerable margin.

c. No pre-trial steps / independent representation

i. These denials of natural justice, had a number of serious flow on consequences, including
depriving me the sort of pleadings and representation I would have had if this had gone to
trial according to ordinary procedures, after discovery etc, on a proper estimate of 4 – 6
weeks trial (up from the 3 – 4 weeks I had estimated in March 2008), with a likely trial date of
late 2009 or early 2010.

ii. For example, if I had been independently represented, there is a much better chance the Trial
Judge would have required Ms 1999s lawyers to wait until pre-trial stages like discovery had
been completed, and pleadings settled after discovery, before the matter proceeded to trial. [I
hope that sequence sounds a bit more familiar and normal and the abomination of undue
process inflicted on me was not too familiar and commonly applied.] The Trial Judge might
have understood that my claims against Ms 1999 and against her original solicitors needed,
at the very least, to be tried according to my November 2008 draft (amateurish, holding)
pleadings, not the February 2008 ones.

iii. Another flow on of being unrepresented by experienced lawyers at this bush wack ambush
trial on 2 December 2008, I now realise with my 20 days of novitiate experience as an (self-)
advocate that I should not have put myself into the witness box at Trial. Given the paucity of
Ms 1999s evidence, and my inability to run my counterclaims since the Trial Judge was
holding me to totally inadequate, raw, February 2008 draft pleadings, I should have just

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 12 of Many
 moved for a no case to answer and orders for costs under rule 63.23 (mind you, that was
more or less what I was compelled to do and did do in any case as the transcripts show).
Imagine if Graeme Devries had been deprived the opportunity to scandalously and
unjustifiably attack me in the witness box (cross examining me with documents stolen by his
client, not discovered to me before the Trial), his using documents he had only seen first time
on 2 December 2008 that were mere indications of my ownership of my properties (notably
my Point Cook properties) and his corrupt attempts (which the Trial Judge loved) to puff
indicia of ownership into indicia of residency (despite eye-witness and other independent
evidence point out the falsity of his submissions). Neither Devries nor Justice Kaye would
have got away with a fraction of their unlawfulness if I had the benefit of a properly timed and
sequenced trial, with properly drafted pleadings and proper legal representation.

1. With independent experience legal representation, Ms 1999 would have been properly
cross-examined by a lawyer who knew what they were doing. Not a complete novice,
like me, who had no idea until going into the witness box on the fourth day that when
the Judge said he had “read all the papers” he meant just the Statement of Claim (as
amended that morning, day 4 of the Trial) and my February 2008 holding draft
defence and counterclaims. What kind of Court is it where the Judge doesn’t read the
hundreds of pages of affidavits and exhibits before the trial? A whole body of
evidence that I thought the Judge had read and understood, and I find out after Ms
1999s case had closed that they weren’t even in bloody evidence because I had been
ambushed and didn’t know that I had to bring these materials into evidence by cross-
examining her. Add to this my physical pain, chronic back ache meaning I had been
awake and standing upright (unable to sit or to lie down) from 6 am Monday 1
December 2008 through until about 3 am on Friday December 2009. What a sick
cruel joke meinen Frauen und Herren and Answuralten. What a sick joke on society.
What criminal contempt and perversion.

d. Judicial Bias

i. My seventh substantive ground of appeal – a magnificent seven. Where to start? With a list
of 12 examples of serious abuse, bias and contempt of course.

1. Devries and Justice Kaye’s insanity inquisition – is this now part of the laws of Victoria
and/or Australia that a defendant has to pass a pre-trial sanity test? Does it apply to
all Victorians/Australians, or only self-represented ones? Does it only apply to

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 13 of Many
 solicitors of 18 years good standing, or does it apply to legal practitioners of more or
less years good standing? What a sick cruel joke meinen Frauen und Herren and
Answuralten. What a sick joke on society. What criminal contempt and perversion.

2. The No-consolidation application – Justice Kaye didn’t even receive or look at my

November 2008 redrafted pleadings until 5 February 2009 and even then, only for the
purposes of throwing out my subpoena that the Legal Services NON-Commissioner
give evidence explaining her dereliction of statutory duties, AND to order me to pay
that statutory authorities legal costs of evading judicial accountability for her statutory
derelictions. What a sick cruel joke meinen Frauen und Herren and Answuralten.
What a sick joke on society. What criminal contempt and perversion.

3. No regard for the perversion and contempt of Devries and O’Dwyer in the Federal
Magistrates Orders (late February 2009 version attached) - Again what a sick cruel
joke meinen Frauen und Herren and Answuralten. What a sick joke on society. What
criminal contempt and perversion. Why didn’t the Trial Judge apply contempt laws
against Turnbull, Berry, Devries and O’Dwyer. Why didn’t the Trial Judge apply
contempt and perjury laws against Ms 1999 and her ex-boyfriend Peter Cockram, or
against the perjuring contemptuous process server Wittekind who pretended to serve
subpoena on him, only didn’t?

4. The Trial Judges grumblings at me, including:

a. his immortal “10 Plaintiff’s died while this Trial has been running” – so I’m not
supposed to defend myself against this outrageous claim brought by Ms 1999s
lawyers with a “paucity of the evidence”, I should just hand over all I own lock
and key to them cause they’re nice and (allegedly) I’m not? What prejudice –
does the Trial Judge care about the mortality rate for Defendant’s in waiting?
What a thing for a Judge to say to a defendant – Reverend Lewis Carroll will
be rolling in his grave not to have though of this one.

5. His take on Mr C.P’s evidence (apparently Peter Cockram, self-confessed stalker of

Ms 1999 is entitled to anonymity under section 121 of the Family Law Act, but Ms
1999, I and our respective children are not? What a sick cruel joke meinen Frauen
und Herren and Answuralten. What a sick joke on society. What criminal contempt
and perversion. The Trial Judge’s take - couldn’t be that Cockram was lying in the

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 14 of Many
 box. Must have been that I am a crazy person who subpoenaed a total random
stranger into the witness box. I hear Lewis Carroll rolling again. Good thing that a
Purana Taskforce Senior Detective was able to give evidence to show that Cockram,
like his ex- Ms 1999 was lying and perjuring in the witness box. Wonder what Mrs
Cockram (sitting outside Court in the corridor) thought of all of this.

6. His publishing a “no case to answer” judgement on my February 2008 version of my

counterclaim against Harwood Andrews Lawyers (“something rarely sought and very
rarely given” according to their Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION Committee
funded counsel – warning bells anyone?) on 11 February 2009, even before I had
given my closing submissions, and where the circumstances and evidence all showed
that my case against them “speaks for itself” and that they “have no answer to the
case.”

7. His assorted abuses of me “wasting time” (no, Ms 1999s lawyers wasted the Courts
time and mine and my assets bringing this blackmail claim in the first place), “raising
irrelevant issues” (No, these were relevant issues, just that the Trial Judge didn’t want
them raised because he didn’t want to deal with them), and that I (never having been
an advocate before and hopelessly out funded and out-manoeuvred by a raft of gross
misconduct and abuse) was “trying to take control of His Court room”. What a sick
cruel joke meinen Frauen und Herren and Answuralten. What a sick joke on society.
What criminal contempt and perversion. And here’s a Trial Judge rolling over to every
unlawful thing that barrister Devries sought from him.

8. His abuse of me on 3 December 2008 for wanting to do as my local GP (one block

from the Court, on corners of William and Bourke Streets, and one block from my
former home of 5 years) and take my chronically sore back to St Vincent’s Hospital
for X-rays and treatment – I should have been in hospital that week not in a Court
Room. What a sick cruel joke meinen Frauen und Herren and Answuralten. What a
sick joke on society. What criminal contempt and perversion.

9. In like vein, his insisting that I start my closing submissions on the afternoon of 11
February 2009 when I (For the benefit of any Amnesty International or Rightswatch
people reading this transcript in the near future, had the luxury of almost 3 hours sleep
for three nights in a row) was barely able to stand on my feet (suffering the extra
blows of being labelled that morning by Ms Sofranou and by the Trial Judge as a faux

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 15 of Many
 human rights lawyer, while Harwood Andrews were labelled as good dutiful lawyers
just going about their jobs properly to protect their client). What a sick cruel joke
meinen Frauen und Herren and Answuralten. What a sick joke on society. What
criminal contempt and perversion.

10. On 17 March Associate Justice Gardiner revealed that he would not hear any part of
these proceedings between myself and Graeme Devries (the 7th Defendant by
Counterclaim in my restated counterclaims recorded as proceedings number 9263 of
2008) because of their 30 year friendship, and that all of the judges in the Masters
Court, with the exception of Associate Justice Daly are similarly afflicted by conflict (of
the kind that the High Court described in Johnson v Johnson [200] 118 CLR 488
though not found to be present in that case). This explains the actions past of
Associate Justice Kings and the actions past and present of Associate Justice Evans.
Given this high strike rate in the Masters Court, I suspect that a similar high strike rate
applies (but has not been disclosed) by the Judges in the Trial Division Courts
(including perhaps Kaye J, Cavanough J, Hansen J) and perhaps also in the Court of
Appeal (including the Chief Justice herself). This needs to be investigated as it goes
a long way to explaining some of the extraordinary conduct of those Judges in
previous hearings in these proceedings. Even by the time of the first Practice Court
hearing in February 2008, these claims between Ms 1999 and I had ceased to be a
legal battle between her and I (all I wanted and want to do is see to the safety and
security of her children – whilst still providing for my own). Since February 2008 Ms
1999 has never stood to benefit economically from these legal proceedings. Since
February 2008 this has been a battle of oppression by a very legally and financially
powerful clique (Ms 1999s lawyers, Ms 1999s 4 lawyers’ 8 lawyers, the Judiciary and
powerful but corrupt statutory bodies like the Legal Practitioners Liability EVASION
Committee and the Legal Services NON-Commissioner) against me. A real coalition
of Goliath’s versus a single solitary David (a David reduced by early financial
oppression to Tom Thumb dimensions).

11. The Trial Judge showed substantial prejudice and bias by congratulating (rather than
punishing) the Plaintiff First Respondent’s lawyers for initiating the unlawful insanity
inquisition against the Appellant Defendant at the outset of the Trial (despite telling
them at first that they had no right or standing to do so). That insanity inquisition
failed “against [the Trial Judge’s] better judgement” on that day. But that insanity
inquisition created an environment of insurmountable prejudice and bias against the

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 16 of Many
 Appellant Defendant that, added to and on top of all of the other substantial
miscarriages of justice that had occurred, meant that it was impossible for the Trial
Judge to give, or to be seen to give, the Appellant Defendant an unbiased and non-
prejudicial hearing.

12. The Trial Judge showed substantial prejudice and bias at the closure of the Trial by
congratulating the Plaintiff First Respondent’s lawyers for “a job well done, in the most
difficult of circumstances”.

20. As to my extra submissions, I wish to expand as follows:

a. As indicated above, and in my June 12 materials and in the attached additional submissions and
materials, it is clear that Ms Sofraniou’s submissions of ‘Res Judicata’ are not only wrong, but they
are surprisingly misleading and deceptive submissions to be made by any member of the Victorian
Bar, let alone a member of its ethics committee. I understand that it is still the law of this land that a
barrister is not permitted to mislead a Judge or lead a Judge to make wrong inferences (Although my
experiences before Justice Kaye and before various judges, notably Justice Cavanough and Justice
Hansen (twice) and Associate Justice Evans (too many times to bear remembering, these
experience do suggest otherwise)). But then as a faux-ly found faux human rights lawyer, and a
faux-ly found dishonest person in the box, maybe my understanding of the laws and ethics of the
legal profession are faux-ly also? The Trial Judge refused to try my counterclaims as part of 9665 of
2007, and actively did all imaginable to see that my counterclaims were not properly tried against Ms
1999 or Harwood Andrews Lawyers. How does that refusal by one Trial Judge to try my claims give
grounds to justify them not being tried as part of 9263 of 2008?

b. Ms Sofraniou’s time limits claim (which it seems the LPLEC are only saying they can run in tandem
with their ‘res judicata’ claims are based on an 11 February 2009 judgement date. Well the Trial
Judge didn’t publish his authenticated orders until about 10 March 2009. A bit hard to appeal against
orders that haven’t been authenticated. Especially when Judges like Cavanough J publish written
orders markedly different to the orders they state in Court (leaving it to slippery barristers like Devries
to creep the written orders after the hearing) and Judges like Hansen J it seems like to wait the 14
appeal days plus 1, before authenticating their orders. What a sick cruel joke meinen Frauen und
Herren and Answuralten. What a sick joke on society. What criminal contempt and perversion. The
14 days should be measured from 25 February 2009 (as the Trial Judge should have handed down a
single judgement on 25 February 2009, not prejudged my claims against Hanlon and Harwood
Andrews 14 days earlier than he handed down judgement in the. Ms Sofraniou says that normally a

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 17 of Many
 party doesn’t insist on the 14 days strict limit. And in any case, the Legal Practitioners Liability
EVASION Committee is not allowed (under applicable Government laws and policies) to run these
sorts of technical time limit arguments to deny justice being done. Unlike the abovementioned
judges, I can hardly be accused of any tardiness in filing and serving my Notice of Appeal.

c. In case I haven’t said this often enough, before throwing out a partially drafted Notice of Appeal, the
Court of Appeal is required by law to give me time to complete my document. The additional pages
to my proposed Amended Notice of Appeal (my fourth restatement now) are attached. These are of
course still just holding pleadings, as I reserve the right to have my Amended Notice of Appeal
drafted and settled by competent legal representatives once I have engaged them.

Message for Justice Kaye (cc others)

21. I repeat my request of 12 June 2009.

24. I look forward to a hearing date for my Summons (on liberty to apply) to the Trial Judge for clarification
of the orders made on 25 February 2009 and (without my knowledge or notice) on 9 April 2009. I would
also like to know whether the Court has taken unlawful steps to sell my property, 10 Hawkhurst Court
Hoppers Crossing, since the Court orders lapsed on 31 May 2009, and if so, according to what laws?

22. Your Honour, having regard to the attached appeal documents, how can you justify or explain the injustices
you wrought with your lazy, prejudiced and biased an downright incompetent performance on 2 December
2008 which, sadly you kept up for the full period of the Trial? Do you consider yourself fit and proper to
continue to hold office?

23. And more importantly, are you going to do something to fix your mistakes, or are you going to try to shunt
me off into the garbage disposal jurisdiction of the Practice Court?

Kind regards from your most vexed, oppressed and abused

JAMES JOHNSON

MELBOURNE'S PRETTY WOMAN FRAUD AND SUPREME COURT WATERGATE CORRUPTION TRIALS Page 18 of Many